Primrose Lodge Weymouth

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff had undertaken additional training and understood the importance of wearing appropriate PPE and additional infection prevention and control measures. There were adequate stocks available including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff were wearing their PPE appropriately during our visit. Sanitisation and PPE stations were placed around the home and there were facilities to remove PPE safely.

The registered manager knew how to access local infection prevention and control resources (for example local health protection team or infection control leads) when they needed advice and support. They were also supported by the provider organisation, provider networks and statutory agencies.

People and staff were taking part in whole home testing. People were supported to make decisions about testing. Visitors to the home were tested using lateral flow (rapid result) tests before entering the home. Visits were planned to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors.

The home had maintained a strong sense of community throughout the pandemic and kept people in touch with their relatives through shared fundraising activities and events alongside newsletters and regular calls.

Infection prevention and control audits took place and action plans were developed to follow up on any required actions. There were also regular spot checks on hand hygiene and PPE. This ensured the registered manager had effective oversight of infection control measures.

Staff supported people and their relatives to understand the isolation processes and gave consideration as to how loneliness and distress could be alleviated during this time.

The registered manager and provider had developed contingency plans in the event of any outbreak of Covid-19 or other emergencies.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good.

The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Although the registered manager was away during our inspection we spoke with the deputy manager and the regional manager.

People felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from harm and abuse. They understood what signs to look for and how to raise a concern. The home had robust recruitment processes to ensure that the staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. People had risk assessments that staff understood and used to help the risk of avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely and staff had formal observations to check their competency when supporting people with this task. The home conducted audits to ensure incidents or issues were recorded, resolved and lessons learnt to prevent things going wrong in future.

People’s needs and choices were assessed with their involvement. This included listening to them and noting aspects of their lives that were important to them and made them individuals. This diversity was acknowledged, respected and supported. People were supported by staff that had received training that gave them the skills and confidence to meet their needs. People were supported to have a balanced and varied diet. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. This included support to attend routine appointments or with visits from health professionals.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and how it applied to the people living at there. The MCA 2005 provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff consistently demonstrated a kind and caring approach towards people. Staff knew people well and respected them as individuals. People were consulted with about the care they received and were actively encouraged to express their views. People were supported to make decisions about things that could affect their health, well-being and quality of life. This included what they wanted to eat or drink, what they wanted to wear, and who and how they wished to spend their day.

People had their care needs met by staff who knew them well. The home had a complaints process. People and relatives were aware of it and had confidence if they raised a concern they would be listened to and timely action taken. Staff had experience of supporting people at the end of their lives. Relatives and health professionals spoke highly of when this had happened.

There was a positive, friendly and open culture at the home where everybody’s views were sought and considered. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services including CQC and local authorities. Staff felt supported by management and their colleagues. Staff had regular supervision where they received both praise and had time to develop their practice. The home had established collaborative working relationships with health professionals which were helping people to stay well for longer. Audits and quality assurance processes were used to identify opportunities for service improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Primrose Lodge is registered to provide care for up to 38 people in a residential area of Weymouth. At the time of our inspection there were 36 older people with residential care needs living in the home. Some of the people living in the home had dementia or other mental health needs.

There was a registered manager who had led the home for seven years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People, relatives, professionals and staff all held Primrose Lodge in high esteem. People and relatives spoke of a sense of community and the commitment of a kind and thoughtful staff team in ensuring people were supported in ways that reflected their personal needs and preferences.

Staff were confident and consistent in their knowledge of people’s care needs and the things that were important to them. They understood how the law provided a framework for the care they provided and actively encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. People told us this enabled them to carry on with their lives the way they wanted to.

People were protected from harm because staff understood the risks they faced and how to reduce these risks. People's views were sought and they were supported to take part in decisions about how they kept safe. They also knew how to identify and report potential abuse. Care and support was delivered in a way that met people’s individual needs and preferences and staff kept clear records about the care they provided.

People had access to health care professionals and were supported to maintain their health by staff. Healthcare professionals were confident that staff made sensible decisions about seeking advice and that guidance was followed. People received their medicines as they were prescribed.

People rights were being protected because appropriate legislation was understood and was being used to ensure people who couldn't make choices for themselves were supported appropriately.

People enjoyed a range of daily activities that reflected individual needs and preferences, including individual and group activities in the home and wider community. People who were at risk of social isolation were helped to take part in activities.

People and visitors described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough food to eat and enough to drink.

People and their relatives were positive about the care they received from the home and told us the staff were compassionate and kind. Staff were cheerful and treated people, relatives and other staff with respect and kindness. Staff felt supported and had the training they needed to do their jobs.

The registered manager took responsibility for quality assurance in the home and shared this role with other senior staff. People and relatives were actively involved in quality assurance and service development.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment and there were systems in operation designed to prevent, detect and control the spread of health care associated infections.

The provider had effective systems to monitor pre-employment checks and recruitment procedures for staff.

The home had suitable systems to monitor the quality of service provided.

We saw that people's needs and risks were assessed and care and treatment was delivered to meet their needs. People said that they felt safe in the home and one person described the staff as 'very kind.'

We saw that the staff were supported through regular training and that staff were encouraged in their professional development.

The home had suitable systems to monitor the quality of the service provided and to assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.